4 ms·
I do wonder if that will be slowly changing under new ownership. Java 9 and 10 had some pretty risky changes, compared to the prior releases. Take a look at t
by rhencke 8y ago
I do wonder if that will be slowly changing under new ownership. Java 9 and 10 had some pretty risky changes, compared to the prior releases. Take a look at the migration guide.
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/10/migrate/toc.htm#JSMIG-GUID-7744EF96-5899-4FB2-B34E-86D49B2E89B6 https://docs.oracle.com/javase/10/migrate/toc.htm#JSMIG-GUID...
Usually you don't see sentences like 'For every tool and third-party library that you use, you may need to have an updated version that supports at least JDK 9.', nor 'Check the websites for your third-party libraries and your tool vendors for a version of each library or tool that’s designed to work on JDK 9 or 10.' as things to watch for in a Java release.
- MBCook 8y ago“Compared to previous releases“ is the issue there. They removed classes that they had been telling people not to use for... well... since they were put in. It had to happen someday. The fact that they let it go on for, what, most of two decades? That’s commitment to backwards compatibility. With the new module system they can make sure that this doesn’t happen again.
- EdwardDiego 8y agoMy main issue with the Java 9 upgrade was the separation of the javax.* apis into a separate module, but it was easily fixed with a Maven artifact.